Santa Cruz Rock Pavement Co. v. Broderick

Citations

• 113 Cal. 628
• 45 P. 863
• 1896 Cal. LEXIS 834

Syllabus

<p>Street Improvement—Construction of Act—Improvement of Accepted Street—Void Contract—Absence of Competition—Liability of City and County—Mandamus.—Where a contract for a street improvement on an accepted street in the city and county of San Francisco, by paving it with bituminous rook, was let under a resolution of the board of supervisors, without inviting proposals for bids, and without any opportunity for the competition, the contract is unauthorized and void under the street improvement act, which applies to any contract for doing any work authorized by the act, irrespective of the character of the street, or of the mode in which the expense is to be paid, and is in excess of the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors, and the city and county is not liable thereunder, and mandamus will not lie to compel the auditor to draw a warrant upon the treasurer for the expense of such improvement.</p> <p>Id.—Repair of Street—Improvement—Paving and Macadamizing.—A contract for the pavement of an accepted street with bituminous rook on a macadam foundation, the street having never been so improved before, is not a contract for the repair of the street within the meaning of section 25 of the street improvement act, but is a contract for the original improvement of the street, within the general terms of the act.</p> <p>Id.—Estoppel of City—Authorization for Payment—Limitation of Power of Supervisors—Knowledge of Contractor.—The fact that the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco assumed to authorize the payment of a demand under a void contract for a street improvement, cannot estop the city; but the board, having no authority to make the contract, can have no authority to order its payment; and the contractor in entering into the contract is chargeable with knowledge of limitations upon the power of the board of supervisors.</p>